A fairer end to relationships consultation - Part 2: Reforming the law for cohabitants on separation - Ministry of Justice

25. Do you agree that cohabitants captured within the framework should be two people living together as a couple in an enduring family relationship?

Yes No Undecided

Please give reasons for your answer.

26. What factors, as outlined by the Law Commission’s 2007 report, do you think the court should take into account when considering whether individuals are cohabitants? Please tick all that apply.

Existence of a joint household Stability of the relationship Financial arrangements Responsibility for children Presence of a sexual relationship Public recognition of the relationship

Other (please specify):

27. Do you agree that those who are already married or in a civil partnership with each other, or those who are too closely related to each other to have married, should be ineligible for the framework?

Yes No Undecided

Please give reasons for your answer.

28. Do you agree that the minimum age to be eligible for the framework should be 18?

Yes No Undecided

29. Do you agree with the Government’s proposal that couples without children must have lived together for a minimum of three years, before they can access the cohabitation framework?

Yes No Undecided

If you disagree with the three-year minimum duration period suggested above, what period would you propose having instead?

None 1 Year 2 Years 4 Years 5 Years More than 5 Years

If you disagree with the three-year minimum duration period, and chose a different period, please explain why below:

30. Do you agree that where cohabitants are living together and there is a child of the family, the minimum duration requirement should be disapplied?

Yes No, but the minimum duration should be lowered No, the minimum duration should not be altered as a result of children Undecided

31. Do you agree that a time limit should be introduced to prevent claims being made after two years have passed since the relationship ended?

Yes No Undecided

If you disagree with the two-year period suggested above, what period would you propose having instead?

No Time Limit 1 Year 3 Years 4 Years More than 5 Years

If you disagree with the two-year period, and chose a different period, please explain why below:

32. Do you agree that “needs” should be the guiding principle the court follows for determining outcomes when cohabitants separate?

Yes No Undecided

Please give reasons for your answer.

33. Do you agree with the government’s view that the objective for meeting needs should be to do so in such a way as to enable termination of dependence and obligations as soon as is just and reasonable?

Yes No Undecided

Please give reasons for your answer.

34. Do you agree that discretionary needs should be excluded from the consideration of needs for cohabitants?

Yes No Undecided

Please give reasons for your answer.

35. Do you agree that the court should be able to take account of needs arising from wider circumstances than the relationship (for example, serious health conditions or disabilities) when determining financial provision?

Yes No Undecided

Please give reasons for your answer.

36. Do you agree there should be a checklist of the matters the court must particularly consider when applying the needs principle?

Yes No Undecided

Please give reasons for your answer.

37. Do you agree with our proposed approach in relation to remedies for cohabitants?

Yes No Undecided

Please give reasons for your answer.

38. In relation to maintenance in particular, do you agree with the follow statements. Please tick all that apply:

Maintenance should be awarded in exceptional circumstances (such as serious health issues or disability). Any maintenance order should be time-limited, with no open-ended “joint lives” orders. A maintenance order term may not be extendable beyond the original period set by the court.

If you disagree with any of the proposals above, please explain why.

39. Do you agree there should be an explicit requirement that the court cannot award cohabitants a higher award than one which would have reasonably been made if they were a married couple divorcing?

Yes No Undecided

40. Do you agree that all of the safeguards listed above should be required in order for an opt-out agreement to be valid?

Yes No Undecided

If you disagree, please explain which safeguards you would either add or remove and explain why.

41. Do you agree an opt-out should not be able to prevent an application being made on behalf of a child?

Yes No Undecided

42. What do you think is the most effective way to communicate these reforms to the public, particularly to help dispel the common law marriage myth and raise awareness of the new legal rights?